politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What would really make Corbyn invincible is doing better th

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Smith doing well on Newsnight

Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.

But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.

Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.

However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.

Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.

Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !

I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!

That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.

He would expect if the opponent was Hilary

Richard_Nabavi said:

MTimT said:

If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.

Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.

Brits don't miss that at all, but they see that it's a completely spurious argument. How do they know that? Because (a) it doesn't apply in the places where the vast majority of Americans live, and no-one using that argument says that gun licences should be available only where first responders might take 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, (b) if that were a genuine argument, no-one in the US would defend the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, which have zero self-defence application, and (c) just look at the gun homicide, accident and suicide figures, which completely swamp any such semi-legitimate argument, and weep.

I think it's trust in government.

What people are worried about is being attacked by someone with a gun, and they choose to be armed as self-protection.

Rather than give them a gun here, we take it away from the other guy.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IanB2 said:

California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...

England is the largest regional subunit with a majority of the population with English as a mother-tongue.

What about Gujarati?

Tim_B said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IanB2 said:

California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...

England is the largest regional subunit with a majority of the population with English as a mother-tongue.

What about Gujarati?

What about Gujarati? Gujarat's population is slightly less than England

Pulpstar said:

OH poll

Trump 42, HRC 39

Two candidates only

Trump 45, HRC 45

Both Stein and Johnson will be on the ballot in Ohio.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MTimT said:

If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.

Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.

Brits don't miss that at all, but they see that it's a completely spurious argument. How do they know that? Because (a) it doesn't apply in the places where the vast majority of Americans live, and no-one using that argument says that gun licences should be available only where first responders might take 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, (b) if that were a genuine argument, no-one in the US would defend the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, which have zero self-defence application, and (c) just look at the gun homicide, accident and suicide figures, which completely swamp any such semi-legitimate argument, and weep.

You are missing it, because it is a historical cultural legacy, not an argument based on current facts. As I said, a very large part of the country is only one or two generations away from that.

Personally, I am against gun licences for those living in cities (save hunting guns), I am for a blanket ban on semi automatics, and I am for stronger regulations on checking gun license applications and safe storage of guns and ammo. But I come to it from a European perspective. What we are dealing with a well-entrenched frontier culture, even though history has moved on from that.

Even now, where we live, most people are at least 15 minutes away from a 911 response. Whatever the national debate, hunting and the ability to defend one's house is what real people discuss. over 46 million US citizens live in rural areas. It may be a minority, but it is still a lot of people.

But I am sure you know better from your apartment in London. And i am sure that Brits are well-placed to lecture US citizens on what are spurious arguments.

MTimT said:

But I am sure you know better from your apartment in London. And i am sure that Brits are well-placed to lecture US citizens on what are spurious arguments.

Yes, actually, I am well placed. Sometimes distance adds perspective. And, what's more, I can simply point to the figures. End of argument.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I must say, when I posted earlier that I thought the DNC convention was looking as though it would be a shambles, I hadn't expected that it would be a shambles on this Trumpesque, larger-than-life, scale.

It's Yuge!!!!

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MTimT said:

If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.

Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.

Brits don't miss that at all, but they see that it's a completely spurious argument. How do they know that? Because (a) it doesn't apply in the places where the vast majority of Americans live, and no-one using that argument says that gun licences should be available only where first responders might take 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, (b) if that were a genuine argument, no-one in the US would defend the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, which have zero self-defence application, and (c) just look at the gun homicide, accident and suicide figures, which completely swamp any such semi-legitimate argument, and weep.

It is worth noting that following recent terrorist outrages in Nice and Bavaria, police on the spot were armed and able to put a stop to the killing. Outside London, and possibly not even there, I cannot see that happening in a timely fashion in the UK.

I would not suggest that we need a US style armed populace, but perhaps it is time to arm and train our police.

There is some work on this front:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/31/boost-in-firearms-coverage-to-protect-against-terror-attacks/

PlatoSaid said:

Tim_B said:

Sanders spokesman saying they have lost control of their people at the convention. The best they can do is to try and stop them chanting "Lock her up" every time Hillary's name is mentioned, and merely boo the mention.

I have never seen anything like this - the convention boos and chants "Lock her up" every time the nominee's name is mentioned, and the party chairman is fired on the eve of the convention.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a primary August 30th to save her congressional seat. Sanders has endorsed her opponent Tim Canova. He has a great first name.

ABC reporter on floor is gobsmacked. Keeps hearing random protest plans from Bernie fans to turn their backs, walk out etc.

It will be interesting to see if they try to stage manage more aggressively in the next few days. They need to be careful they don't create a bigger backlash.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I think it's trust in government.

What people are worried about is being attacked by someone with a gun, and they choose to be armed as self-protection.

Rather than give them a gun here, we take it away from the other guy.

I really don't think it's that. I've travelled a lot in the US, and I think the answer is much, much simpler: they just love guns so much that they don't care about the deaths. On trips to the US I used to scan through the channels on the TV, in the vain hope of finding something worth watching, and I was always struck by the extraordinarily high proportion of channels which, at any time of the day or night, would show someone with a gun. They love the excitement of guns. That's all there is to it, I reckon.

Up to them, of course. It's a democracy. If they are happy with so many innocent deaths, well, they are happy with them.

I chatted to a very nice bloke from West Virginia in a bar at Charlotte airport once. He had 38 guns. I din't think he had so many because he was afraid of being attacked :-)

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Dromedary said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IanB2 said:

California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...

England is the largest regional subunit with a majority of the population with English as a mother-tongue.

What about England and Wales, the jurisdictional subunit?

Doesn't England legally mean "England and Wales" /pedant mode

Pedant mode or troll mode?

I had my most innocent face on while typing that.

RobD said:

Dromedary said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IanB2 said:

California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...

England is the largest regional subunit with a majority of the population with English as a mother-tongue.

What about England and Wales, the jurisdictional subunit?

Doesn't England legally mean "England and Wales" /pedant mode

Devolution, man! And football and rugby

Richard_Nabavi said:

MTimT said:

But I am sure you know better from your apartment in London. And i am sure that Brits are well-placed to lecture US citizens on what are spurious arguments.

Yes, actually, I am well placed. Sometimes distance adds perspective. And, what's more, I can simply point to the figures. End of argument.

The fact that you think you are well placed to lecture anyone tells me all I need to know about you. End of argument.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I think it's trust in government.

What people are worried about is being attacked by someone with a gun, and they choose to be armed as self-protection.

Rather than give them a gun here, we take it away from the other guy.

I really don't think it's that. I've travelled a lot in the US, and I think the answer is much, much simpler: they just love guns so much that they don't care about the deaths. On trips to the US I used to scan through the channels on the TV, in the vain hope of finding something worth watching, and I was always struck by the extraordinarily high proportion of channels which, at any time of the day or night, would show someone with a gun. They love the excitement of guns. That's all there is to it, I reckon.

Up to them, of course. It's a democracy. If they are happy with so many innocent deaths, well, they are happy with them.

I chatted to a very nice bloke from West Virginia in a bar at Charlotte airport once. He had 38 guns. I din't think he had so many because he was afraid of being attacked :-)

Love those who have visited the States and talked to a bloke from West Virginia and so are the complete expert on US attitudes towards guns.

Twitter
Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 1m1 minute ago
If you thought the Republican Convention was out of control ... Tune into the Democratic Convention.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Dromedary said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IanB2 said:

California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...

England is the largest regional subunit with a majority of the population with English as a mother-tongue.

What about England and Wales, the jurisdictional subunit?

Wales has devolution - and its own football and rugby teams

Sure, but England and Wales has a legal system (a law society, a bar, a land registry, and a prison service, as well as a judiciary), an institute of chartered accountants, a police federation and...a cricket team!

chanting Bernie now....

the far left are mad.

Speedy said:

To top up a perfect disaster, organizationally:

Well that's a mistake. A few journalists frazzled by a lightening strike would be a brilliant distraction.

she has no choice she has to replace Kaine with Sanders.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Speedy said:

To top up a perfect disaster, organizationally:

Well that's a mistake. A few journalists frazzled by a lightening strike would be a brilliant distraction.

Especially ones that mix up their and they're.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I think it's trust in government.

What people are worried about is being attacked by someone with a gun, and they choose to be armed as self-protection.

Rather than give them a gun here, we take it away from the other guy.

I really don't think it's that. I've travelled a lot in the US, and I think the answer is much, much simpler: they just love guns so much that they don't care about the deaths. On trips to the US I used to scan through the channels on the TV, in the vain hope of finding something worth watching, and I was always struck by the extraordinarily high proportion of channels which, at any time of the day or night, would show someone with a gun. They love the excitement of guns. That's all there is to it, I reckon.

Up to them, of course. It's a democracy. If they are happy with so many innocent deaths, well, they are happy with them.

I chatted to a very nice bloke from West Virginia in a bar at Charlotte airport once. He had 38 guns. I din't think he had so many because he was afraid of being attacked :-)

Gun collecting is a popular hobby here. I know several folks who have hundreds of weapons. I like to go to gun and knife shows - usually held at National Guard Armories for some reason - and just see what's out there and the eye watering prices charged for the more exotic specimens. Having fired - and been in awe of - the destruction wrought by a BAR - favorite weapon of Clyde Barrow, it is a rush.

The whole gun thing is deeply embedded in the American psyche and goes back to Jamestown. You learn just to accept it, deal with it, live with it, make any adjustments needed, and move on.

Dromedary said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Dromedary said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Dromedary said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IanB2 said:

California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...

England is the largest regional subunit with a majority of the population with English as a mother-tongue.

What about England and Wales, the jurisdictional subunit?

Wales has devolution - and its own football and rugby teams

Sure, but England and Wales has a legal system (a judiciary, a law society, a bar, a land registry, and a prison service), an institute of chartered accountants, a police federation and...a cricket team!

Cricket team? It's just called "England", innit!

Yes but it represents England and Wales and is governed by the England and Wales Cricket Board.

So how come Wales has its own devolved government and flag?

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I think it's trust in government.

What people are worried about is being attacked by someone with a gun, and they choose to be armed as self-protection.

Rather than give them a gun here, we take it away from the other guy.

I really don't think it's that. I've travelled a lot in the US, and I think the answer is much, much simpler: they just love guns so much that they don't care about the deaths. On trips to the US I used to scan through the channels on the TV, in the vain hope of finding something worth watching, and I was always struck by the extraordinarily high proportion of channels which, at any time of the day or night, would show someone with a gun. They love the excitement of guns. That's all there is to it, I reckon.

Up to them, of course. It's a democracy. If they are happy with so many innocent deaths, well, they are happy with them.

I chatted to a very nice bloke from West Virginia in a bar at Charlotte airport once. He had 38 guns. I din't think he had so many because he was afraid of being attacked :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun-LZvOTdw

I accept that the facts don't warrant a gun culture in cities. I have often made that clear. So what precisely? As you yourself point out, I started out saying this is a cultural legacy.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MTimT said:

The fact that you think you are well placed to lecture anyone tells me all I need to know about you. End of argument.

Your ignorance of me is the most remarkable thing about that comment, but I note that you actually agree with me that there is no rational basis for the US attitude to guns. To quote your own words back at you:

You are missing it, because it is a historical cultural legacy, not an argument based on current facts.

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MTimT said:

If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.

Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.

Brits don't miss that at all, but they see that it's a completely spurious argument. How do they know that? Because (a) it doesn't apply in the places where the vast majority of Americans live, and no-one using that argument says that gun licences should be available only where first responders might take 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, (b) if that were a genuine argument, no-one in the US would defend the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, which have zero self-defence application, and (c) just look at the gun homicide, accident and suicide figures, which completely swamp any such semi-legitimate argument, and weep.

It is worth noting that following recent terrorist outrages in Nice and Bavaria, police on the spot were armed and able to put a stop to the killing. Outside London, and possibly not even there, I cannot see that happening in a timely fashion in the UK.

I would not suggest that we need a US style armed populace, but perhaps it is time to arm and train our police.

There is some work on this front:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/31/boost-in-firearms-coverage-to-protect-against-terror-attacks/

I am both glad to hear it and sad that it has become nessecary.

The flipside of having lots of armed officers is that sooner or later the wrong person will get shot.

You're far more in danger as a police officer than as a general member of the public though.

Would being armed have saved my uncle's life ? I'm not sure but there is a good argument that he should have been armed at the time he went to the incident.
Of course gun shops no longer exist either in England either now.

http://tinyurl.com/pcguthrie

The story behind the Ansbach suicide bomber is not going to read well.

Not surprised they planned to deport him. He didn't come to Germany clean.

I wonder how much difference will be caused by the quasi-arbitrary 6-month cut-off date for members' franchise?

"No, we don't agree that the arguments are spurious in the rural areas, nor historically, which gave rise to the gun culture that persists. But we do agree that the logic for gun ownership no longer exists in urban areas."

I don't understand your argument about time. Say u live in a rural area. someone breaks into your house, you shoot them, half an hour later the ambulance arrives but the person is now dead. Why does it make less sense to be able to shoot( and therefore to bare arms) an intruder in an urban area where the person is more likely to survive.

Also violent crime is more likely to take place in dense urban areas not rural ones. Therefore u could make the argument for arms in urban areas.

PlatoSaid said:

Michael Barbaro
Bernie Delegate Network, which has around 1,200 delegates here, said it's contemplating a "formal challenge" of Tim Kaine as running mate.

Doesn't he have about 1900 there?

wow that sen. from Jersey.Cory Booker.

nunu said:

english king.....
goading us now.....

Right, wasn't he German?

OGH: "UPDATE Ladbrokes do have a Corbyn vote share market up but there are no obvious bargain."

That's certainly true - Ladbrokes' share of the vote bands don't appear to offer any bands above 55% - 60% ..... that's a bit mean Shadsy!

JennyFreeman said:

But hang about: 60% in a two-horse race is a lot less impressive than 60% in a four-horse one.

True.... but it can be spun very easily as an increased majority.

Surprise - CNN is still biased...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/25/cnn-abruptly-ends-coverage-of-dnc-protests-to-cove/